The 402 Hearings on the autopsy pictures

[James DiEugenio]

As I have said before, if one was defending Oswald one would be able to call pre trial evidentiary hearings all day and night for a week, or more. Maybe longer.

I learned something about these by working on Oliver's film.  Since we dealt with professionals in the field who were familiar with these proceedings: Henry Lee, Brian Edwards, Bob Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht.  (Strange that the Arizona drug crimes advisor does not deal with these things is it not?)

This is what would occur:

1. The defense attorney would ask why there were no identifying labels on any of the pictures.

2. He would then call John Stringer to the stand, since he was the photographer of record, and ask him why this was so. And why he did not follow his usual protocol either in that or the series of photos he said he usually took, which was close up, medium shot, context shot, especially for impacted areas.

3. The lawyer would then ask him : what on earth was the mystery photo and why was it so badly posed that you cannot orient it?

4. He would then ask him: did you not say that the cerebellum was disrupted?  Well, does it look disrupted to you here?

5. Mr. Stringer: Are you the only photographer on these pictures?  He would likely say yes.  The lawyer would then ask him: did you use Ansco film and press pack technique?  He would say no.  At this point the attorney would call Robert  Knudsen to the stand.

6.  Mr. Knudsen, did you take autopsy pictures on the night JFK was killed? He would say yes. Can you tell me by experience and observation what film was used in these pictures of Kennedy's brain?  Yes, that is Ansco.  What technique was used, he would say that is from a press pack. 

7.  Mr Knudsen, did you see photos of probes in Kennedy's body?  Yes I did.    Are you aware that those pictures do not exist?  Yes I am.

8.  Call Stringer back to the stand: Did you cooperate on a supposed inventory of the pictures for the DOJ in about 1965?  Yes I did.  Does that inventory say all the pictures are accounted for?  Yes it does.  You yourself knew that was a false statement.  Yes I did.  Why did you sign it?  Well, you have to go along sometimes to get along. Lawyer says, but some people don't.  Stringer says: but they don't last very long.

9. At this point the lawyer now displays the BOH photo on a screen.  He now begins to parade 40 witnesses from Bethesda and Parkland.  One by one over a period of about 2 hours they say that something is missing from that photo, something they all remember.  Namely a baseball sized cavity.

10. And now, the icing on the cake. The attorney produces pics of the Harper fragment.  He calls Dr. Noteboom to the stand.  He says: yes I examined that bone fragment in Dallas.  And yes I agree it came from the occipital area as the two other pathologists who examined it in Dallas also thought. The lawyer asks, where is it now:  Noteboom says Burkley gave it to the FBI who lost it.  Lawyer says: how convenient.  The lawyer then asks : but if that analysis was correct, how do you explain this picture?  After staring at the photo for a moment or two, Noteboom says: beats the heck out of me.  Lawyer says: I think we all feel that way about this whole subject.

Your honor, I move to have the autopsy pictures ruled inadmissible.

Judge:  Motion is sustained.

Bugliosi start stamping his feet, and yelling objections.

Judge: Mr. Bugliosi if you continue to act like this you will be charged with contempt.  This is not some show trial like you did in London. This is for real.

Edited January 30, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Benjamin Cole]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As I have said before, if one was defending Oswald one would be able to call pre trial evidentiary hearings all day and night for a week, or more. Maybe longer.

I learned something about these by working on Oliver's film.  Since we dealt with professionals in the field who were familiar with these proceedings: Henry Lee, Brian Edwards, Bob Tanenbaum, Cyril Wecht.  (Strange that the Arizona drug crimes advisor does not deal with these things is it not?)

This is what would occur:

1. The defense attorney would ask why there were no identifying labels on any of the pictures.

2. He would then call John Stringer to the stand, since he was the photographer of record, and ask him why this was so. And why he did not follow his usual protocol either in that or the series of photos he said he usually took, which was close up, medium shot, context shot, especially for impacted areas.

3. The lawyer would then ask him : what on earth was the mystery photo and why was it so badly posed that you cannot orient it?

4. He would then ask him: did you not say that the cerebellum was disrupted?  Well, does it look disrupted to you here?

5. Mr. Stringer: Are you the only photographer on these pictures?  He would likely say yes.  The lawyer would then ask him: did you use Ansco film and press pack technique?  He would say no.  At this point the attorney would call Robert  Knudsen to the stand.

6.  Mr. Knudsen, did you take autopsy pictures on the night JFK was killed? He would say yes. Can you tell me by experience and observation what film was used in these pictures of Kennedy's brain?  Yes, that is Ansco.  What technique was used, he would say that is from a press pack. 

7.  Mr Knudsen, did you see photos of probes in Kennedy's body?  Yes I did.    Are you aware that those pictures do not exist?  Yes I am.

8.  Call Stringer back to the stand: Did you cooperate on a supposed inventory of the pictures for the DOJ in about 1965?  Yes I did.  Does that inventory say all the pictures are accounted for?  Yes it does.  You yourself knew that was a false statement.  Yes I did.  Why did you sign it?  Well, you have to go along sometimes to get along. But some people don't.  Stringer says: but they don't last very long.

9. At this point the lawyer now displays the BOH photo on a screen.  He now begins to parade 40 witnesses from Bethesda and Parkland.  One by one over a period of about 2 hours they say that something is missing from that photo, something they all remember.  Namely a baseball sized cavity.

10. And now, the icing on the cake. The attorney produces pics of the Harper fragment.  He calls Dr. Noteboom to the stand.  He says: yes I examined that bone fragment in Dallas.  And yes I agree it came from the occipital area as the two other pathologists who examined it in Dallas also thought. The lawyer asks, where is it now:  Noteboom says Burkley gave it to the FBI who lost it.  Lawyer says: how convenient.  The lawyer then asks : but if that analysis was correct, how do you explain this picture?  After staring at the photo for a moment or two, Noteboom says: beats the heck out of me.  Lawyer says: I think we all feel that way about this whole subject.

Your honor, I move to have the autopsy pictures ruled inadmissible.

Judge:  Motion is sustained.

Bugliosi start stamping his feet, and yelling objections.

Judge: Mr. Bugliosi if you continue to act like this you will be charged with contempt.  This is not some show trial like you did in London. This is for real.

Not only that, but wasn't a roll of film confiscated in the autopsy room and destroyed? 

An over-zealous SS agent...or an attempt to suppress evidence? Suppression of evidence is not exactly kosher either. 

[James DiEugenio]

I am not sure about that one Ben.

But there is no doubt there are quite a few pictures missing. 

Gary Aguilar discussed this in a couple of  his essays.

That would be importnat in getting a motion to suppress through.

Edited January 30, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Pat Speer]

40 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I am not sure about that one Ben.

But there is no doubt there are quite a few pictures missing. 

Gary Aguilar discussed this in a couple of  his essays.

That would be importnat in getting a motion to suppress through.

Jim, this is something I have read quite a bit about. Autopsy photos are sometimes withheld because they are considered too gruesome, and might prejudice a jury. If the prosecution wanted to show them to the jury, and the judge agreed, they would first have been shown to Stringer, and he would have been asked if these were the photos he'd taken. He would have said yes with the possible exception of the brain photos, which would probably not have been shown anyway. (I say possible because Stringer never said anything to disavow the brain photos prior to his 78th year.) They may have then shown them to Humes and Boswell, and asked them if these photos reflected the wounds they saw on the evening of the autopsy. They would almost certainly have said yes. There is little chance then that these photos would have been withheld, should the prosecution want them placed into evidence and the judge agree they were not too prejudicial. 

Once entered into evidence, of course, the defense could have countered with a few Parkland witnesses--but by no means 40 of them--as many if not most of them refused to say the photos were fake when questioned by researchers. 

In short, the scenario you describe in which the photos would be withheld based upon the say-so of Knudsen and the Parkland witnesses is highly unlikely. 

If this would have happened, moreover, it would have been a mistake, IMO, as the official photos and x-rays do not support the single-assassin solution as offered by the WC, Clark Panel, HSCA, etc. 

 

 

 

 

[Benjamin Cole]

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 24

One roll of film of photos taken by a medical corpsman during the autopsy was seized by Secret Service agent and ruined by deliberate exposure to light . Because the presence of the anterior neck wound was not known or discovered at ...

 

The Journal of Legal Medicine - Volume 3 - Page 24

books.google.co.th › books

 

 

 

[Charles Blackmon]

Which one was the "Mystery photo"?

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 24

One roll of film of photos taken by a medical corpsman during the autopsy was seized by Secret Service agent and ruined by deliberate exposure to light . Because the presence of the anterior neck wound was not known or discovered at ...

 

The Journal of Legal Medicine - Volume 3 - Page 24

books.google.co.th › books

 

 

 

This roll was developed through the actions of the ARRB (as I recall). In any event,. Dr. Randy Robertson petitioned the archives to view these photos, and was allowed to do so. He found they supported the authenticity of the other photos, and showed the same body with the same wounds only from further back. He said they were damaged by the negatives' exposure to light but that one could still make out the images. 

Edited January 30, 2023 by Pat Speer

[Pat Speer]

56 minutes ago, Charles Blackmon said:

Which one was the "Mystery photo"?

The photographs of an empty cranium have been collectively called the "Mystery Photo" due to the problems some have had in determining whether the photo shows the skull from in front or behind. The doctors initially said it showed the skull from behind, but the Clark panel claimed it was taken from the front and the HSCA followed suit. It was this photo that led me down the rabbit hole. It is discussed ad nauseam on my website and is the subject of  my YouTube video series, The Mysterious Death oof Number 35. (These videos are also available on my website.) 

 

[Charles Blackmon]

Thanks Pat. I have your website bookmarked and have read a number of the chapters but not all.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Charles Blackmon

[James DiEugenio]

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

FOUND INSIDE – PAGE 24

One roll of film of photos taken by a medical corpsman during the autopsy was seized by Secret Service agent and ruined by deliberate exposure to light . Because the presence of the anterior neck wound was not known or discovered at ...

 

The Journal of Legal Medicine - Volume 3 - Page 24

books.google.co.th › books

 

 

 

Nice catch Ben. Although Pat and Randy say thy are there.

Edited January 30, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

The photographs of an empty cranium have been collectively called the "Mystery Photo" due to the problems some have had in determining whether the photo shows the skull from in front or behind. The doctors initially said it showed the skull from behind, but the Clark panel claimed it was taken from the front and the HSCA followed suit. It was this photo that led me down the rabbit hole. It is discussed ad nauseam on my website and is the subject of  my YouTube video series, The Mysterious Death oof Number 35. (These videos are also available on my website.) 

 

If anything, Pat understates the problem with the photo.

There were years on end that people tried to figure out what the heck this was.

They even went as far as trying to locate it by the other objects in the room.

Baden was apparently wrong about it, and this is one of the things that many people are suspicious about.  How could Stringer, or Knudsen , have been so incompetent as to put a picture like this out there--sort of likes on its own.  

Stringer was supposed to have said that you take three shots of any impacted area, as I described above.

Are these on the Randy R reel?

[Guest]

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Micah Mileto]

20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

I don't think that's even half the list of custody issues with the official autopsy photos - their credibility can be shot to hell by so many different points of argument. For example - Saundra Spencer said that she only recalled seeing color negative film of the body, no black and white or color positive film (ARRB interview, 12/13/1996 [audio]; ARRB deposition, 6/5/1997 [text] [audio]). This is despite the fact that the color negatives in the official collection are supposed to be copies made from the color positives, as it is easier to make prints from negatives (Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi, 2007, Endnotes, Kennedy's Autopsy and the Gunshot Wounds to Kennedy and Connally). Spencer didn’t mention having access to any equipment which could have be used to copy an image from a positive onto a negative, and she even said that she didn’t think her section of the NPC was capable of developing color positives. As she explained, the White House Laboratory was one of multiple rooms situated in the Naval Photographic Center, and the building had another room which had equipment capable of developing color positive transparencies, but she didn’t think that room was used, as it was not occupied on the day described (ARRB interview, 12/13/1996 [audio]; ARRB deposition, 6/5/1997 [text] [audio]). Spencer said, in her deposition, that there were different occasions when she personally used those facilities to process color positives. Spencer also said that the Kennedy photos were developed using the “color negative C-22 process”, and that an “internegative cannot be processed C-22” – an internegative is a piece of negative film with an image copied from another piece of film. When asked “So that you are certain then that they were not inter-negatives that you developed?”, Spencer replied “No, they were original” (ARRB deposition, 6/5/1997 [text] [audio])

[Pat Speer]

28 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

I don't think that's even half the list of custody issues with the official autopsy photos - their credibility can be shot to hell by so many different points of argument. For example - Saundra Spencer said that she only recalled seeing color negative film of the body, no black and white or color positive film (ARRB interview, 12/13/1996 [audio]; ARRB deposition, 6/5/1997 [text] [audio]). This is despite the fact that the color negatives in the official collection are supposed to be copies made from the color positives, as it is easier to make prints from negatives (Reclaiming History by Vincent Bugliosi, 2007, Endnotes, Kennedy's Autopsy and the Gunshot Wounds to Kennedy and Connally). Spencer didn’t mention having access to any equipment which could have be used to copy an image from a positive onto a negative, and she even said that she didn’t think her section of the NPC was capable of developing color positives. As she explained, the White House Laboratory was one of multiple rooms situated in the Naval Photographic Center, and the building had another room which had equipment capable of developing color positive transparencies, but she didn’t think that room was used, as it was not occupied on the day described (ARRB interview, 12/13/1996 [audio]; ARRB deposition, 6/5/1997 [text] [audio]). Spencer said, in her deposition, that there were different occasions when she personally used those facilities to process color positives. Spencer also said that the Kennedy photos were developed using the “color negative C-22 process”, and that an “internegative cannot be processed C-22” – an internegative is a piece of negative film with an image copied from another piece of film. When asked “So that you are certain then that they were not inter-negatives that you developed?”, Spencer replied “No, they were original” (ARRB deposition, 6/5/1997 [text] [audio])

The problem, Micah, is that these are the recollections of someone 34 years after an event. To be admitted into evidence--should someone have wished to admit the photos into evidence--the photos would have to be attested to by a witness that these were authentic photographs of the President taken during his autopsy. Stringer, Humes, and Boswell would have done this, no problem, with the possible exception of the brain photographs--which the prosecution would almost certainly not want on the record. 

There really isn't much dispute on this issue. While the defense could counter the conclusions of the prosecution's witnesses (Humes, Boswell, Stringer) with witnesses of its own, the odds of a defense attorney preventing the introduction of a piece of evidence because someone tangential to the case had their doubts about it, is practically nil. Look at the O.J. case. Dr. Henry Lee was allowed to express doubts about the blood evidence. But there is no way the blood evidence would have been held back because of his doubts. It just doesn't work that way. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Lance,

Actually, the admissibility issue would be the initial burden of the government in its case-in-chief and defense would have had a good chance at either having some of the government's evidence excluded or allow the evidence but then give the jury an instruction that the challenges or questions to the evidence be considered when deciding how much weight to give particular evidence. Before the 2017 mock trial, Bill Simpich and I had prepared lots of motions to object to admissibility of evidence. However, because of the time constraints, the mock trial team ultimately decided to allow all of the government's evidence to be introduced with instructions to the jury.

The autopsy photos could be relevant as to the question if there were any frontal shots, particularly for the fatal head shot. The chain of custody on CE399 is a mess and of the the sixth floor evidence would also be exposed to admissibility issues for many reasons that I don't have time to discuss here.  The testimony of the FBI experts on the ballistics evidence (e.g. toolmarks, shirt and paperbag fibers  was very problematic.   And then there is the shaky testimony of the key witnesses (e.g., Brennan, Markham, etc) who would have crumbled under cross-examination.  

This is why 6 of 7 mock trials conducted by law schools and bar associations since 1967 have resulted in acquittals or hung juries. Oswald was unconvictable which was why he had to be murdered.